After reading Look Me in The Eye a few weeks ago, I became interested in Asperger’s Syndrome. More spisificly, I became interested in fictional depictions of people with Asperger’s. I wondered how they matched up to Robison’s excellent description of himself.
That is why I read the Second Opinion, by Michael Palmer. The book jacket wasn’t very promising. Doctor with Asperger’s. Can you say House rip-off? Because I sure can.
The book was marginally better than I thought it would be.
Palmer is a slightly above average writer, whose strength isn’t the development of believable characters, but is instead the development of a plot that moves along in such a way as to keep my interest moderately sustained, enough to get me to finish the book, just to see how it turned out.
Thea Sperelakis, an Asperger, who is a moderately famous medical doctor is summoned back to Boston when her father is the victim of a hit and run accident. Only, and this is shocking, Thea begins to discover that her father’s accidental meeting with a car might not be an accident at all, and she egins to stumble, and this is also shocking, onto a wider conspiracy at the hospital in which her father worked.
With her father able to blink one eye, allowing Thea to communicate with him in short, criptic conversations, Thhea must figure out what’s going on in time to bring the victims of her father’s maiming to justice.
Spoiler, she does.
The book moves along at a good steady clip, rarely pausing for introspection, or for anything else. The conspiracy is sort of interesting. The books resolution is just satisfying enough to not leave me feeling too cheated, although it is slightly implausible. It’s either too obvious, or not obvious enough, who ends up being behind the conspiracy, depending on which way you look at it.
The Asperger’s is photogenic, as well. No weird rant’s on a mate with paws, unlike in Robison’s autobiography. It’s more of a quirky Temperance Brenin type of autism, for good or ill.
In short, if you like thriller’s this isn’t bad, and if you don’t like thrillers, and you’re stuck with this, it’ll get you through several hours.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
How to Lose Friend's and Alienate People
I just watched How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, about a writer trying to make it as a celebrity reporter, and it's the best comedy I've seen in the last year. Its just slapstick humor, awkward situations, piled atop one another. I thought I was going to die laughing.
The main lead's struggle to get coke, his being kicked in his hurt leg by his romantic coestar, the meeting with his father, the landlord, all just so damn funny, and the jokes, most of them anyway, come at you at such an obleaque angle, I was laughing out loud.
Plus, the serious aspects, obvious in a hollywood film, work well. If I gave stars, I'd give this one four, or five, or whatever a perfect score is. Great film.
The main lead's struggle to get coke, his being kicked in his hurt leg by his romantic coestar, the meeting with his father, the landlord, all just so damn funny, and the jokes, most of them anyway, come at you at such an obleaque angle, I was laughing out loud.
Plus, the serious aspects, obvious in a hollywood film, work well. If I gave stars, I'd give this one four, or five, or whatever a perfect score is. Great film.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
swine flu and the Times
So the times has got a new columnist, who apparently is going to be a Republican Morene doud, as far as I can tell from his first column. His name is Charles Blow. The column isn't bad.
If republicans were all like Susan Collins, or the previously republican Spector, I'd be republican. Watching the insane right wing of the party shit all over itself is kind of fun, but also horrifying, because I agree with Blow that we need an oposition party.
Also, Swine Flu, as I thought,, is apparently not that big of a deal. We always get these crazy disease panics, (Sars, anyone?) which never ammount to anything. I don't want us to have to suffer through another 1918, but the hype always feels like somewhat of a let down.
Just so I don't let down all my readers the article I'm talking about is this one
If republicans were all like Susan Collins, or the previously republican Spector, I'd be republican. Watching the insane right wing of the party shit all over itself is kind of fun, but also horrifying, because I agree with Blow that we need an oposition party.
Also, Swine Flu, as I thought,, is apparently not that big of a deal. We always get these crazy disease panics, (Sars, anyone?) which never ammount to anything. I don't want us to have to suffer through another 1918, but the hype always feels like somewhat of a let down.
Just so I don't let down all my readers the article I'm talking about is this one
Friday, May 15, 2009
Two-state solution
So I was reading the Times today, and happened across this article about the Israelie Palestinian conflict. A two state solution, obviously, means that Israel would give some land back to Palestine, remove its troops from Palestinian territory, ect, ect.
Seriously, fuck that. A two-state solution might look good for the United States, and I'm sure, Palistine, suffering under a one state solution right now would welcome it, but Israel has no good reason to give in to this idiotic demand. It won the land it has now in the 1967 war, a war, I should point out, it didn't start, and should keep that land. If I were israel, I'd finish the job, and obliterate palistine. I mean, every two weeks, some anti-simitic Palestinian throws a rock at an Israely, or bombs some dangerous, culpible target like a sidewalk Cafe or a shopping center, and then Israel launches a rade, the international comunitty bitch's, Palestine cries persicution, and then, in anger, some Palestinian throws a rock, and we start all over again.
Due to the foolishness of Israel's initial land grant by the allied powers, their stuck in an untenible situation. They should crush their enemies, if given any trouble, and we should just shut up about it. Two-state solution. Hey, why don't we give Texas back to Mexico, and we'll give England back to the Irish, and rome should find the people that make up itally, and undo the conquests of the Romen Empire. Oh, yeah, and everyone in Austraila should get the fuck out, go back to England, and give it back to its original population.
Seriously, fuck that. A two-state solution might look good for the United States, and I'm sure, Palistine, suffering under a one state solution right now would welcome it, but Israel has no good reason to give in to this idiotic demand. It won the land it has now in the 1967 war, a war, I should point out, it didn't start, and should keep that land. If I were israel, I'd finish the job, and obliterate palistine. I mean, every two weeks, some anti-simitic Palestinian throws a rock at an Israely, or bombs some dangerous, culpible target like a sidewalk Cafe or a shopping center, and then Israel launches a rade, the international comunitty bitch's, Palestine cries persicution, and then, in anger, some Palestinian throws a rock, and we start all over again.
Due to the foolishness of Israel's initial land grant by the allied powers, their stuck in an untenible situation. They should crush their enemies, if given any trouble, and we should just shut up about it. Two-state solution. Hey, why don't we give Texas back to Mexico, and we'll give England back to the Irish, and rome should find the people that make up itally, and undo the conquests of the Romen Empire. Oh, yeah, and everyone in Austraila should get the fuck out, go back to England, and give it back to its original population.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Review of Band of Brothers
Band of Brothers, by Stephen A. Ambrose, is a brief book summarizing the role E Company, first platoon, played in World War II. Ambrose compiles his information from interviews with the survivors of the company, and from the historical record, and presents the information in an organized chronology, from basic training up until the surrender of Germany. Band of Brothers was a rather enjoyable book. Ambrose does a good job of summarizing E Company's activities throughout World War II, and those soldiers he takes extra care to focus on, he illuminates well. Winters, Webster, and Sobel, for example, are written about in such a way that it's almost like the reader knows them personally.
Other soldiers fair less well. Many of the enlisted men, for example, are mentioned, but only because of telling event, humorous or serious, that illustrates enlisted life, (the man who won 6000 dollars in a craps game,) or the man who got drunk and then did something foolish, but then are not mentioned for another sixty or seventy pages, leaving me with no idea who they were.
This matters, because when Ambrose tells you so and so got killed, you have no idea who he's talking about, unless you go back to a previous section and find the person's name.
This flaw, however, isn't Ambrose’s fault. There were 2000 soldiers in E. company, about 150 in the first platoon, and to keep track of them all would have required a book of what I assume would have been five or six full volumes, and this book isn't that, obviously.
Ambrose excels, or the subject matter allows him to excel, in showing war on a small scale. Things that other military historians summarize in one sentence, "the fighting on Utah beach was fierce,) Ambrose takes fifty pages to explain, and this is all to the good. He conveys the sense of battle, of struggle, and shows how what have now become historical battles were awful things to those who had to live through them, and often weren't seen in the larger context by those men.
The chronology of the company’s exploits, from basic training, to jump school, and the actual fighting they did in the war, is done well, and with a sense of continuity.
If you imagine that the Company is the novel’s main character, which I suppose it is, then Ambrose’s neglect of individual enlisted men, which I’ve already mentioned as being unavoidable, is much less irksome.
Ambrose does a good job showing why E company did such a good job during the war, and what the aggregate mental state of the Company was during a given engagement.
If you’re a fan of military history, World War II, or good nonfiction in general, I recommend Band of Brothers. It’s not exactly a page turner, due to the density of information, but it’s a worthwhile read in the end.
Other soldiers fair less well. Many of the enlisted men, for example, are mentioned, but only because of telling event, humorous or serious, that illustrates enlisted life, (the man who won 6000 dollars in a craps game,) or the man who got drunk and then did something foolish, but then are not mentioned for another sixty or seventy pages, leaving me with no idea who they were.
This matters, because when Ambrose tells you so and so got killed, you have no idea who he's talking about, unless you go back to a previous section and find the person's name.
This flaw, however, isn't Ambrose’s fault. There were 2000 soldiers in E. company, about 150 in the first platoon, and to keep track of them all would have required a book of what I assume would have been five or six full volumes, and this book isn't that, obviously.
Ambrose excels, or the subject matter allows him to excel, in showing war on a small scale. Things that other military historians summarize in one sentence, "the fighting on Utah beach was fierce,) Ambrose takes fifty pages to explain, and this is all to the good. He conveys the sense of battle, of struggle, and shows how what have now become historical battles were awful things to those who had to live through them, and often weren't seen in the larger context by those men.
The chronology of the company’s exploits, from basic training, to jump school, and the actual fighting they did in the war, is done well, and with a sense of continuity.
If you imagine that the Company is the novel’s main character, which I suppose it is, then Ambrose’s neglect of individual enlisted men, which I’ve already mentioned as being unavoidable, is much less irksome.
Ambrose does a good job showing why E company did such a good job during the war, and what the aggregate mental state of the Company was during a given engagement.
If you’re a fan of military history, World War II, or good nonfiction in general, I recommend Band of Brothers. It’s not exactly a page turner, due to the density of information, but it’s a worthwhile read in the end.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
responding to the times
Something, that if this blog doesn't lie down and die soon, that I'll be doing often is responding to the Times.
The NY times is probably the best paper in the world, as far as presentation of news go, I always trust its national section, but its editorial bored, and some of its coverage is just too fucking bleeding heart for my taste. Since my letters to the editor go unpublished and unanswered, I feel that in this blog, I can correct some of the idiotic emotionalism that they display from time to time, no pun intended.
Spisificly, I'm talking about this article is an example of a socialistic practice that is morally defensable, but economicly dangerous.
The article claims that insurers apply higher insurance rates to women then they do to men, because women go to the doctors more, and have children. Fair enough. These companies exist to make money, not to coddle American's. If you want lower rates, get your overies removed, then, you won't be able to have kids, and then, of course, you should be charged a lower rate.
I'm serious. It doesn't matter if it looks to be unfair on the surface. This is different from equal pay for equal work, job oprotunity, and discrimination. Women cost insurers more money as a gender, so they should be charged more as a gender.
The NY times is probably the best paper in the world, as far as presentation of news go, I always trust its national section, but its editorial bored, and some of its coverage is just too fucking bleeding heart for my taste. Since my letters to the editor go unpublished and unanswered, I feel that in this blog, I can correct some of the idiotic emotionalism that they display from time to time, no pun intended.
Spisificly, I'm talking about this article is an example of a socialistic practice that is morally defensable, but economicly dangerous.
The article claims that insurers apply higher insurance rates to women then they do to men, because women go to the doctors more, and have children. Fair enough. These companies exist to make money, not to coddle American's. If you want lower rates, get your overies removed, then, you won't be able to have kids, and then, of course, you should be charged a lower rate.
I'm serious. It doesn't matter if it looks to be unfair on the surface. This is different from equal pay for equal work, job oprotunity, and discrimination. Women cost insurers more money as a gender, so they should be charged more as a gender.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Book Review. Look Me in the Eye My Life With Aspergers. John Robison
For me to read a memoir, the author has to have gone through something truly uncommon. I don’t want to read about Jone Didian’s husband dying, if I was married to her, I’d be dead, too. I don’t want to read about someone’s fight with alcoholism, I don’t want to read, in short, three hundred pages of someone telling me, first, how much their life sucked, and second, that they’re a great person because they managed to struggle through whatever problems they had in the end, and gained understanding because of it.
Robison’s memoir, fortunately, isn’t like that. Well, it is. He was abused, parts of his life were awful, and he did get through it with talent and determination, but he had legitimate problems that weren’t self-inflicted.
Robison has Aspergers syndrome, a mild form of autism that leaves the afflicted person unable to pick up on social cues. Other symptoms include narrow interests, an unusually high vocabulary, an inability to pick up on body language, lack of empathy, and strange, quirky humor.
Robison has the deck stacked against him from the start. His mother is crazy, his father beats the shit out of him on a regular basis, and he has Aspergers.
The first third of the book skims over an unhappy childhood, which includes semi regular beatings, watching his mother and father scream drunkenly at each other, and Robison’s only friend drowning.
But we get away from that quickly enough, and Robison describes what’s it like to have Aspergers. He does so well, partially through the careful outlining of how he reacted in certain situations, and partly through his writing style.
Through most of the book, you only remember that he has the syndrome because of the events he describes, not because of a writing style. He does things like pet his fellow kindergarten students, say woof in the middle of conversations he doesn’t understand, and smiles when he hears of his aunt’s death.
A simple summary of these events makes him sound like a complete sociopath, and that doesn’t do him justice. He explains why all these things made perfect sense to him, and the description of the disease, rather than the description of his life, is what makes the book reading.
The best essay in the book, Units One through Three, is great because the tone of Aspergers really gets through. I can’t help but think whomever Robison’s editor was did some heavy edits, because most of the book sounds normal, that is, if Robison had written a novel in the same style, generally you wouldn’t ever think he had Aspergers.
Then you get to units One through Three, and you realize that this guy, however well he’s managed to cope still struggles to relate to normal people.
He talks about naming people according to what they look like, so his wife, being the middle child in her family, is unit Two, and his child is named Bear cub, his brother is named Varmint, his mother, slave, and his father, stupid.
He also displays the quirky sense of humor that’s a symptom of the disease. I never really understood exactly how humor could be abnormal, until I read this passage, quoted below. “
“I'd been timing him since we learned of his mom's pregnancy, eight months back. According to what the doctors had told us, Cubby was hatching a week early. I'd done a lot of reading, and I knew hatchlings put on quite a bit of weight in the three weeks before being born, so I was expecting him to come out somewhat small, but he was even littler then I expected.”
Does that strike anyone else as skincrawlingly fucked up? It sickened me in a way I can’t explain very well, I saw; sort of, why someone might think comparing children to hatchlings might be amusing, but it was also just so distasteful, not because of the analogy but because of the language.
It gets even stranger. Robison has his wife pet him, refers to her hand’s as paws, her hair as fur, her feet as hind legs. Again, fucked up.
I’ve known one or two people with Aspergers, and these passages reminded me of awkward conversations I’ve had with them.
This isn’t to say that I blame Robison for talking like this, but his voice, in all its weardness came through so clearly that I was a little repelled, at points, but that just means the book does its job, by showing the difficulties people with Aspergers go through all the time.
Robison does an excellent job of conveying what it’s like to have Aspergers, and I recommend the book for that reason alone.
Grade B+
Robison’s memoir, fortunately, isn’t like that. Well, it is. He was abused, parts of his life were awful, and he did get through it with talent and determination, but he had legitimate problems that weren’t self-inflicted.
Robison has Aspergers syndrome, a mild form of autism that leaves the afflicted person unable to pick up on social cues. Other symptoms include narrow interests, an unusually high vocabulary, an inability to pick up on body language, lack of empathy, and strange, quirky humor.
Robison has the deck stacked against him from the start. His mother is crazy, his father beats the shit out of him on a regular basis, and he has Aspergers.
The first third of the book skims over an unhappy childhood, which includes semi regular beatings, watching his mother and father scream drunkenly at each other, and Robison’s only friend drowning.
But we get away from that quickly enough, and Robison describes what’s it like to have Aspergers. He does so well, partially through the careful outlining of how he reacted in certain situations, and partly through his writing style.
Through most of the book, you only remember that he has the syndrome because of the events he describes, not because of a writing style. He does things like pet his fellow kindergarten students, say woof in the middle of conversations he doesn’t understand, and smiles when he hears of his aunt’s death.
A simple summary of these events makes him sound like a complete sociopath, and that doesn’t do him justice. He explains why all these things made perfect sense to him, and the description of the disease, rather than the description of his life, is what makes the book reading.
The best essay in the book, Units One through Three, is great because the tone of Aspergers really gets through. I can’t help but think whomever Robison’s editor was did some heavy edits, because most of the book sounds normal, that is, if Robison had written a novel in the same style, generally you wouldn’t ever think he had Aspergers.
Then you get to units One through Three, and you realize that this guy, however well he’s managed to cope still struggles to relate to normal people.
He talks about naming people according to what they look like, so his wife, being the middle child in her family, is unit Two, and his child is named Bear cub, his brother is named Varmint, his mother, slave, and his father, stupid.
He also displays the quirky sense of humor that’s a symptom of the disease. I never really understood exactly how humor could be abnormal, until I read this passage, quoted below. “
“I'd been timing him since we learned of his mom's pregnancy, eight months back. According to what the doctors had told us, Cubby was hatching a week early. I'd done a lot of reading, and I knew hatchlings put on quite a bit of weight in the three weeks before being born, so I was expecting him to come out somewhat small, but he was even littler then I expected.”
Does that strike anyone else as skincrawlingly fucked up? It sickened me in a way I can’t explain very well, I saw; sort of, why someone might think comparing children to hatchlings might be amusing, but it was also just so distasteful, not because of the analogy but because of the language.
It gets even stranger. Robison has his wife pet him, refers to her hand’s as paws, her hair as fur, her feet as hind legs. Again, fucked up.
I’ve known one or two people with Aspergers, and these passages reminded me of awkward conversations I’ve had with them.
This isn’t to say that I blame Robison for talking like this, but his voice, in all its weardness came through so clearly that I was a little repelled, at points, but that just means the book does its job, by showing the difficulties people with Aspergers go through all the time.
Robison does an excellent job of conveying what it’s like to have Aspergers, and I recommend the book for that reason alone.
Grade B+
an Introduction
No one's reading this. Well, I'm reading this, and that will have to do for now. I assume most Bloggers fail within between five and ten entries. I might stop blogging, because its like listening to myself talk, at this point, and I can do that without a computer. Wouldn't that be disappointing for you?
I should, given that this is my first blog post, talk about what this blog is, besides totally awesome.
This blog will deal with a number of things, politics, book reviews, and random musings, not necisarily in that order.
So without further adue, let's begin.
http://smartstocks.com I was studying for final exams, and needed a break, and I found this game to play the stock market online, with fake money and a delayed market. Its simple to use, and took me about two seconds to sign up to. So I'm passing it on. God, with all the traffic this blog gets this will probably ruin their server's.
http://smartstocks.com
I should, given that this is my first blog post, talk about what this blog is, besides totally awesome.
This blog will deal with a number of things, politics, book reviews, and random musings, not necisarily in that order.
So without further adue, let's begin.
http://smartstocks.com I was studying for final exams, and needed a break, and I found this game to play the stock market online, with fake money and a delayed market. Its simple to use, and took me about two seconds to sign up to. So I'm passing it on. God, with all the traffic this blog gets this will probably ruin their server's.
http://smartstocks.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)